IPOB Heads To Supreme Court, Challenges Terrorism Proscription

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has taken its legal fight against its designation as a terrorist organization to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a ruling by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division that upheld its proscription by the Federal Government.

Dissatisfied with the appellate court’s decision, IPOB’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, along with P.A.N. Ejiofor, Maxwell Opara, Jude Okey Ugwuanyi, Patrick Agazie, Mandela Umegborogu, and Magnus Ikenna Nwangwu, has filed an appeal before the apex court, arguing that the ruling violates constitutional provisions on fair hearing.

IPOB’s Grounds of Appeal

IPOB’s notice of appeal outlines several key legal arguments, including:

1. Violation of Fair Hearing (Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution)

IPOB argues that the ex parte order used to proscribe the group was granted without affording it an opportunity to be heard, violating its constitutional right to fair hearing.

2. Misinterpretation of National Security vs. Fundamental Rights

The group asserts that the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the Constitution by prioritizing national security concerns over fundamental human rights, particularly the right to fair hearing.

3. Failure to Meet Criminal Law Standards

IPOB contends that the Federal Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it engages in terrorism, as required in criminal proceedings.

4. Discrimination Against Igbo Ethnic Group (Section 42 of the Constitution)

The appeal claims that the proscription unfairly targets IPOB members, who are predominantly of Igbo origin, amounting to ethnic discrimination.

5. Overreach of Judicial Powers (Section 305 of the Constitution)

IPOB argues that the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by upholding a ruling that effectively declared a “state of emergency”, a power reserved exclusively for the President under the Constitution.

6. Right to Self-Determination Under International Law

Relying on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, IPOB maintains that its agitation for Biafra falls within the framework of international human rights law and does not justify a terrorism designation.

7. Indefinite Use of Ex Parte Orders

The appeal challenges the indefinite application of an ex parte order, citing judicial precedents that emphasize the need for due process in such rulings.

Prayers Before the Supreme Court

IPOB is urging the Supreme Court to: Reverse the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming its proscription; Declare its proscription unconstitutional and nullify the Federal Government’s classification of IPOB as a terrorist organization.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) is listed as the respondent in the case, as IPOB challenges the Federal Government’s legal justification for its proscription.